AMIT BAJAJ ADVOCATE

I have found the order of Delhi ITAT in the case namely DCIT Vs Nalwa Investments Ltd. very important one wherein it  has been held that mere faliure to disallow expenses u/s 14A will not amount to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) unless malafide is proved. In this case even the auditors did not suggest disallowance u/s 14A in respect of expenses relating to tax free income. Hence no malafide intention for not attributing expenses to tax free income was proved consequently no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could be levied.

An accused can escape conviction for murder if he proves that there was no premeditation for the act, occurred in a heat of passion, no cruelty involved and undue advantage taken, the Supreme Court has ruled.
A bench of justices Asok Kumar Ganguly and Deepak Verma in a judgement said that the accused can seek immunity from murder only if all these four above circumstances are established in defence of the crime.

"In order to bring a case under Exception (4) to Section 300 IPC, the evidence must show that the accused acted without any premeditation and in a heat of passion and without having taken undue advantage and he had not acted in a cruel or unusual manner.